Exclusive tenancy jurisdiction requires civil courts to refer tenancy questions to the Mamlatdar before deciding possession disputes.

Where a civil suit for possession on redemption of a mortgage raises an incidental tenancy dispute under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, the Civil Court must not decide whether the defendant is a tenant, protected tenant or permanent tenant; that question lies within the Mamlatdar's exclusive jurisdiction and must be referred for statutory determination. The Civil Court may proceed with the possession claim only after that finding. The text also notes that an appellate court may correct an inconsistent finding made by a lower court contrary to its own jurisdictional ruling, even if no separate appeal was filed against that finding.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in a suit by a landowner for possession of agricultural land on redemption of a mortgage, the Civil Court could decide the incidental question whether the defendant was a tenant or protected tenant under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, or had to refer that issue to the Mamlatdar; (ii) Whether the High Court could set aside an inconsistent finding of the first appellate Court in second appeal.

Issue (i): Whether, in a suit by a landowner for possession of agricultural land on redemption of a mortgage, the Civil Court could decide the incidental question whether the defendant was a tenant or protected tenant under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, or had to refer that issue to the Mamlatdar.

Analysis: The statutory scheme gave the Mamlatdar exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether a person was a tenant, protected tenant or permanent tenant for the purposes of the Act. A Civil Court could entertain a suit for possession against a trespasser or mortgagee on redemption, but where the defendant raised the plea of tenancy and that issue arose for decision, the Civil Court was bound to stay the suit and have that issue determined by the competent tenancy authority. The pre-section 85A position, as settled by the earlier Bombay decision approved by the legislature, required reference of the tenancy issue to the Mamlatdar rather than adjudication by the Civil Court itself.

Conclusion: The issue had to be referred to the Mamlatdar and could not be finally determined by the Civil Court.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could set aside an inconsistent finding of the first appellate Court in second appeal.

Analysis: The first appellate Court had wrongly proceeded to record a finding on the mortgage aspect after holding that it lacked jurisdiction to decide the tenancy issue. That finding was inconsistent with its own jurisdictional ruling. The High Court was competent to correct the error and to eliminate the inconsistent finding even though the defendants had not appealed.

Conclusion: The High Court was entitled to set aside the inconsistent finding.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the tenancy question lay within the Mamlatdar's exclusive domain and the lower courts were bound to follow that procedure; the High Court's interference with the inconsistent finding was also upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tenancy issue under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 arises incidentally in a civil suit, the Civil Court must refer that issue to the Mamlatdar and decide the suit only after the statutory determination, and an appellate court may correct an inconsistent finding made contrary to that jurisdictional scheme.

---